Caicedo v. The Anthem Companies, Inc.
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:21-cv-05642
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Caicedo v. The Anthem Companies, Judge Caproni ordered Caicedo to explain her appeal and opposition to a requested stay.
Eugenia Caicedo and The Anthem Companies, Inc.; the order required Caicedo to respond by November 4, 2022, while the requested stay and appeal issues remained unresolved.
What happened
In Eugenia Caicedo on behalf of herself, Nationwide FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. The Anthem Companies, Inc., Anthem asked the court to pause the case while Caicedo’s appeal was considered. The appeal challenged an earlier order denying certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action.
Anthem argued that Caicedo had not explained why the appeal was allowed or what effect it would have on the case. Anthem also asked the court to suspend upcoming deadlines, including discovery and a pretrial conference. Caicedo opposed the request for a stay.
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered Caicedo to respond by November 4, 2022, explaining why the appeal was procedurally proper, why the court would have jurisdiction while the appeal was pending, and why she opposed the stay. The order did not decide whether to grant the stay or whether the appeal could proceed.
The detailed version
- Caicedo v. The Anthem Companies, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-05642
- Sarah Netburn
- Oct. 31, 2022
Background
The defendant submitted a letter requesting a stay, meaning a pause, of all proceedings while the plaintiff’s appeal was pending. The appeal concerned the court’s September 29, 2022 order denying certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The defendant characterized the appeal as unauthorized and argued that the plaintiff had not sought permission for an interlocutory appeal or explained why such an appeal was permitted.
The defendant said it could not determine how the appeal might affect discovery and later motions. It identified deadlines for a status update, completion of fact discovery, a pretrial conference, and completion of expert discovery, and asked that those deadlines be suspended. The opinion states that the plaintiff opposed the stay and declined to consent to it.
Court’s Action
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered the plaintiff to respond by November 4, 2022. The response was to address three issues: why the interlocutory appeal was procedurally appropriate, why the court would have jurisdiction while the notice of appeal was pending, and why the plaintiff refused the defendant’s request for a stay.
The order did not grant or deny the requested stay. It also did not decide whether the appeal was proper or whether the court had jurisdiction over it. The opinion is therefore an order requiring a response rather than a decision on the merits of the appeal or the stay request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.